Boobs Oddly Censored On Samurai Warriors 3 Cover
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Pretty much any superhero movie is pg 13 or even pg. The Dark Knight was pretty violent and graphic yet was rated PG 13. Many horror movies are PG 13, The Ring for example. Jurassic Park was PG 13. I could go on and on. Now as you said it depends on ones definition of violence but my point is that violence is more debatable in our society then sexual content is.cobrausn said:
Our censorship groups have no problem rating a movie with someone getting burned alive (The Dark Knight) PG 13 but if there was any sort of nudity I can guarantee it would have been rated R.
A good point, which makes me wonder was it a touch up of the box art rather than an act of censorship?duchaked said:
Exposure to violence has gone way up, and yet teen violence rates are at a low point. Exposure to sex has gone way up, and teen pregnancy and STD rates have gone way up. There is some reason behind the seemingly counter-intuitive viewpoint of allowing exposure to violence but not sex, whether right or wrong.Jodah said:
It's a debate for another time. I'm pretty libertarian, so I don't tend to side with censorship, but I can understand the reasons behind it.
It's a possibility. Everybody wants to make a big deal and start throwing blame around for pretty much anything, but it is quite possible it's just an artistic touch-up.orangecharger said:
In agreement, the "fixed" one looks better, or at least more realistic; the other gal looks like an over-endowed stripper about to suffer a back injury while doing judo....
As for US prudishness, it sucks, agreed, and I live here...but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Nintendo is still very much seen as a "kid's game maker" and to be honest a younger demographic on average will be buying this game, I am sure.
Don't worry though, the Australian sensors will probably be along shortly to cover her in a heavy poncho and make the US look like a rabid nation of crazed hedons by comparison...or wait, is it only sensorable if she's shooting zombies in AU? I forget!
As for US prudishness, it sucks, agreed, and I live here...but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Nintendo is still very much seen as a "kid's game maker" and to be honest a younger demographic on average will be buying this game, I am sure.
Don't worry though, the Australian sensors will probably be along shortly to cover her in a heavy poncho and make the US look like a rabid nation of crazed hedons by comparison...or wait, is it only sensorable if she's shooting zombies in AU? I forget!
For a self proclaimed genius you should be able to understand that just because it happens to some people, does not mean it is accepted as normal or ok by the general populace.Archangel357 said:
How about YOU leave the silly generalizations to the people who live in The United States and actually know what it is like to live there rather than assuming. Keep your hateful comments to yourself. Arsehole.Archangel357 said:
You know, saying how smart you are doesn't make you suddenly win arguments. The rest of us have a PhD in 'Not Giving a Fuck'.Archangel357 said:
We censored tits long before teenage birthrates became a freaking epidemic and we probably will long afterwards. Also, A fact you probably ignored - the teenage pregnancy rate has been declining in the US ever since the carefree 90s, whereas the rate has been rising in many areas in Europe. Maybe in studying for your PhD or by using your 'super intellect' you might have learned what that means - the two are probably not related.
And the single primary reason for gun violence in America is... wait for it... drugs. Prohibition brought about a huge rise in violence and the 'War on Drugs' did the same. The best thing we could ever do for ourselves is legalize drugs. Areas of the U.S. with more gun restrictions regularly have higher gun death rates. Say it with me... "More gun control does not equal less gun crime... in America. Less guns does not equal less violence, just less gun violence." Not very smart, are you?
Besides, you Europeans have a longstanding history of keeping the peasants unarmed and defenseless, so I guess I really shouldn't expect much more out of this argument. When it comes down to it, I'll take an increase in gun violence for the ability to defend myself and my family without being criminalized.
Godspeed -Saint, you'll need all your patience to an argument with super-genius here, who no doubt has made plenty of friends and won plenty of arguments by quoting his IQ score and telling people he's a grad student. I've already wasted enough time. I'm out.
If we may, for a moment, address facts. There is roughly half as much bare breast shown on the modified cover, which makes the claim of being "only by a minuscule amount" completely inaccurate. Yes, it's unnecessary censorship; yes, it warrants discussion; we can do this without stretching the truth and undermining the point.Tom Goldman said:
This is truth.sneakypenguin said:
The bottom one is more reasonable. I had a girl friend a few years back that had abnormally large breasts for her body type (5'5", slim, C-cups). She was damn uncomfortable with them whenever she did anything physical. Even social situations were a bit much; "Uh... are those real?"
She and I both agree that use of our lady parts as a sexual selling point is unnecessary. I'm a little surprised with this though. It's as if it happened in reverse. Like, increasing bust size would be what I expected of some marketing dept to increase general appeal.
